Investigation into H-1B and L-1 Visa Programs

The U.S. Department of Labor has launched a nationwide investigation focused on fraud associated with the H-1B visa and PERM programs. This action seems long overdue, aiming to foster greater trust in the employment-based immigration system in the country.

However, while H-1B visas are under scrutiny, there’s another category—the L-1 visa—that has existed for many years with less oversight and a potentially higher risk of abuse.

Congress established the L-1 visa for legitimate global companies needing to transfer executives, managers, or employees with specialized skills between countries. Properly used, this program can indeed aid American businesses in competing globally and encourage investment within the U.S.

The crux of the problem lies in one seemingly straightforward term: manager.

You might think it’s clear-cut—managers supervise teams, evaluate performance, allocate resources, and bear responsibility for outcomes. But immigration law also recognizes certain “functional managers,” individuals who manage a specific function rather than a direct personnel team.

While that concept can be legitimate, it often gets twisted by companies wanting to replace American workers with less expensive foreign labor.

This year, Bloomberg highlighted allegations from former employees of Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), claiming the firm secured over 6,500 L-1A visa approvals from 2019 to 2023 by categorizing some technical and sales staff as managers. TCS maintains that it acts within the law.

Regardless of whether these allegations are substantiated, they underscore a bigger issue. The lack of a clear definition of who qualifies as a manager leads to uneven and unfair application of the law.

And the problem doesn’t stop with large corporations. Bigger companies often attract media attention, whistleblowers, and government regulators. In contrast, smaller businesses might operate largely in the shadows. A mid-sized consulting firm, engineering company, or staffing agency can exploit the same legal ambiguities to bring in cheaper talent from abroad without much public scrutiny.

Congress ought to explore whether firms create overseas branches solely to funnel unqualified employees into roles that could be filled by Americans.

Legitimate businesses shouldn’t fear such examination. However, those engaging in fraudulent practices need to be aware of potential civil or even criminal repercussions.

Another question that doesn’t seem to come up: why is it necessary for certain employees to perform their roles from within the U.S. instead of managing or supporting those roles from abroad?

When the L-1 statute was introduced, global collaboration was quite different. Nowadays, leaders manage international operations using secure networks, video calls, cloud platforms, and collaborative tools. Various professionals can direct teams spread across the globe without relocating.

If a large multinational wants to move a senior executive to oversee significant U.S. operations, that’s often justifiable. However, when companies assign managerial titles merely to circumvent stricter visa regulations, the consequences should be significant.

The stakes go beyond temporary work visas. Those granted L-1A visas are considered senior executives or managers, and they have fewer restrictions when applying for permanent residence or citizenship compared to H-1B visa holders.

This means that the initial acceptance of an L-1 visa applicant often serves as a pathway to permanent residency and even citizenship.

Congress should not weaken legal immigration; instead, it should work to bolster public trust in the system.

This starts with a clear, enforceable definition of “manager” that reflects genuine supervisory authority, meaningful operational control, and actual decision-making responsibilities.

Moreover, federal agencies need to be prompted to rigorously enforce existing laws. Employers who knowingly submit false information or structure their operations to circumvent the law’s intent must be investigated and held accountable.

Real enforcement can alter behavior. Companies that misuse employment-based visa programs should face significant civil penalties, exclusion from future programs, and potential criminal charges in cases of intentional fraud. When the penalty for dishonesty outweighs the benefit, the temptation to exploit the system usually diminishes.

Coming to America, I was drawn by its promise. I embraced its values and respected its laws, finding opportunities that felt unique to this country. It enabled me to create successful businesses, generate numerous jobs for American workers, and give back to the nation that provided me so much. My gratitude is profound.

This gratitude fuels my belief in the importance of protecting legal immigration. America should continue welcoming talented individuals ready to build, innovate, and contribute. Yet, a nation that aspires to attract the best must also earn the trust of its citizens. Trust stems from law enforcement, merit recognition, and ensuring every visa aligns with national interests.

When immigration operates fairly and transparently, the U.S. remains a symbol for dreamers and a place where people can trust the system. The American Dream is too valuable to risk undermining through dishonesty. It must be safeguarded for those prepared to earn it.